What did your installer have to say regarding the window?

The dealer does not want to just replace the upper window. They strongly feel it's Just not something that can not be properly done in the field. This sort of multi window opening is assembled at the factory. Our installer was outstanding. The installer however is not involved with warranty work at this point. The dealer is waiting on Marvin as well and was also assured that we would have an appointment prior to this. The issue seems to be Marvin dragging their feet or just not having enough people to take care of problems.

Thought I would copy and paste your remarks from another thread so that this one is also up to date. You said:

Thank you. It's much appreciated. I did hear from our Marvin repair rep
last evening. He seemed like a very knowledgeable guy and was also quite
personable. While it doesn't improve factory QC or make an issue like
this better it sure helps smooth the edges and set the the tone when you
get some one to deal that seems to know their business and is straight
forward. Overall it sounds like Marvin has him covering several states.
In either event we hope to have him at the house with in the next two
weeks.
In the mean time we are set for more windows to go in this
week. I will post exterior photos soon as I would like opinions on
replacing the top window and not the whole unit in the field.

That I post was on another forum. My impression of that forum is that it's more technical in nature so cross posting every thing seems a bit inappropriate. For example I see no need to post exterior photos here but it may be more appropriate to post about the Sash's that were made to the incorrect dimension but still delivered with the windows, broken top stop etc. QC has just been dismal and there won't be any excuses made for that no matter how friendly a rep is.

I did fail to mention that one of things he indicated was that his first impression was the unit should be replaced. I believe he said his boss said that was not an option so it was truly disconcerting to hear some one at Marvin higher up the chain has already said "no" to replacing the unit before they have even seen it.

Since we are having more windows installed this week and each opening is several thousand dollars I expect we will just have to hold back payment in the amount of the entire defective unit until this issue is resolved.

I know I certainly didn't pay nearly 2x as much as Jeld-Wen to have a new window full of filler.

I am sure Marvin will take your concerns to heart. My point of posting this from the other forum was just to bring this thread current in that you have spoken to the Marvin rep.

I wouldn't describe that failure as epic by any means.

It probably says more than I can that the best some can offer is to take exception to a descriptive instead of focusing on a product failure...no matter how epic or mundane.

Sorry for the lack of contribution dpennell. Descriptions are important in this business and overreacting could help explain the lack of help you've received. The title of your thread comes off as a bit slanderous for the cosmetic problem you seem to be experiencing.

While I agree I wouldn't call this an "epic fail", I agree with the OP that this is unacceptable. These windows are very expensive, it's a huge outlay of money. It would be killing me if I paid such a large sum, only to have the result pictured. The OP should not have this issue whatsoever, and Marvin should have been quick to rectify it instead of skirting the issue, and hemming and hawing.

I have to say that my Marvin wood-clad windows installed last year are impeccable. I know you said you have a great installer, but the question still needs to be asked - could this problem be an installer error? Even the best installer can make mistakes, be in a hurry, have guys on the crew who aren't as good as previously, etc.

I have seen the experts on this forum help posters with all kinds of suggestions and diagnoses of what might be the source of a problem. But not on this thread. It would be great if someone on this forum could make suggestions from their breadth of experience as to what has caused what is pictured.

If there was any error on the dealer or installers part it would have been accepting and installing the unit, seemingly with out thorough inspection. The factory paint however failed after installation.

In my opinion any builder, window dealer, installer etc. who thinks a window delaminating is a cosmetic issue should probably rethink their career. Thankfully AFAIK neither our dealer or installer is of this ilk.

friedajune,

Some more directed feedback was offered on another forum. I don't believe this appears to be the result of mishandling at the time of installation. This appears to be a finish quality issue. Again, this is the best that I can tell from an over the computer inspection.

This definitely appears to be a manufacturing defect and something that, if that is the case, Marvin should address.

I also agree with the original poster that any sort of lamination of skimming of wood filler is less than desirable solution. I do think, if it is a finish issue, the window can be sanded and prepped for refinishing in situ.

To address fredajune's request to have the "pros" weigh in on this, here is my humble opinion: This looks more like a paint rather than a structural issue with the windows. Picture #2 looks like a de-lamination. Wood windows do not use solid pieces of lumber to construct the head, jambs, and sills. These are usually finger-joined pieces with a clear veneer that is either painted or stained. Keep in mind, using Finger-Joined or FJ is not a cheaper way of constructing the window. Not only maximizing the output of every bit of a piece of lumber (most use 95-98%) with the remainder going to heat the plant in the winter or animal bedding), FJ gives you a stronger, straighter piece of wood.

As to the painting/staining. More and more manufacturers have taken it upon themselves to offer this option. The end consumer needs to be mindful that this a convenience for you. You not only are saving a great deal of money by having the factory provide this (usually about a third of what a painter will charge in my area) but it is one more step in the overwhelming process of either new home construction or window replacement that is provided to you. For ease, the individual interior parts of the windows are sprayed in the factory and then assembled. You will see some wood grain on the painted surfaces so this should be expected. The window/door is then shipped sometimes thousands of miles on a truck, offloaded and then reloaded, stored, re-loaded on trucks, stacked on the site awaiting installation, and finally installed using nails, screws, caulking, shims, flashing tape etc. The other trades come through. Opening and closing doors/windows for access. Running cords and wiring from the exterior to the interior over window sills. Wheel barrows over door thresholds. Where am I going with this? There is a lot happening to your windows and doors that you aren't even aware of. Manufacturers try their best to package the product properly to avoid superfluous damage but some damage is inevitable. The windows/doors will usually need job site touch up. Your dealer should be ordering matching paint/stain for this and most of the time they don't. So this is something you should request.

As to the quality of the factory paint/stain: it is done to the highest standards but in my opinion does not match up to the type of job that a top notch painter can do on the job by hand. It is done late in the building process unlike the early painting/staining done in the factory. Note I say by "hand". If your job site painter is spraying the windows, many times they don't get to all six sides of the window/door (as is done in the factory before assembly) and they "forget" the tops and bottoms. Very important to do as the window/door will take on moisture in the winter if not properly painted on all sides and not operate properly. This is usually blamed on the manufacturer when it clearly is not their issue. How to check for this? Very easy with a mirror. If your finished windows are a pastel blue, the top and bottom should be blue not the factory prime coat. Your job site painter will caulk/seal the joints where interior covers come together and small gaps where an SDL bar coping meets the sash. If you as a homeowner are looking for this type of detail, I would forego the factory pre-finishes or simply use them as a base coat for your final color choice. I hope this helps. Now I will climb off my soap box.

EastBay 10 - very interesting. My installer didn't even mention or offer factory painting as an option, just asked me about having them primed. My Marvin wood-clad windows came primed by the factory, but I had my painter paint the trim - I had to wait until I had more painting to do around the house, as he was not going to come over just to paint window trim. In the interim weeks before my painter came, the primed windows looked so good, they almost looked like they didn't need painting. But once my painter painted the trim, the windows looked really great.

Perhaps the biggest perk of factory paint is that in a case like this it really limits a manufacturers ability to point fingers at a third party. Also your sash paint is fully cured so no sticking windows- Major bonus!

As for price on the cost of paint, the Polygon alone was roughly $300. All painting on this one opening was several hundred dollars including factory painted trim. Not really a savings but depending on your project and the opening it usually is a wise choice.

As far as getting paint from Marvin I can say I've tried to no avail. Marvin will not even release their formula and treats it like a trade secret. After much effort on that front what I received is a vial of paint equal to a nail polish bottle or a bottle of Testers model paint. I could have it matched but in this case it really would be a moot point. When paint fails as in images #1 and #3 there's a reason for it. Repainting is just
putting a band over over a problem.

Image #1 and #3 are of the same area. This is delamination and likely extends underneath the direct set window. This is on the bend of the quarter circle. While I can't get this to translate in a photo (it's a difficult spot to photograph) the result here is a finish like a deck that's been power washed too hard. It's very coarse and uneven. Nothing at all like normal wood grain.

Image #2 is a cracked frame. Be it from freight, installation or manufacturing it's disappointing. Much more so on the same frame with other defects.

So no one is confused about normal grain and factory paint I'll post another image tomorrow that shows normal grain in the paint. I would agree on that front that much of it will benefit from a finish coat of paint but IME unless something has gone terribly wrong you should never have to do that before your five year paint warranty is up. If you do I expect you void your paint warranty that you paid dearly for.

Finger joined wood may be straighter, but i'd argue that it is stronger or more expensive. Bad things happen when moisture gets introduced as well.

I might argue for stronger along the same lines that plywood is stronger as the sum of parts. I get it that plywood veneers, pressed in glue, at different angles is better but there might be something to the dimensional stability argument. You are definitely right that they are more moisture sensitive for certain.

As promised here is a photo of Marvin's paint finish. This was the worst spot I could find. It's a total non-issue. I see no correlation to image #2 which clearly shows a very problematic spot that should not have passed any form of quality control.

That definitely looks to be more of a finish application issue and perhaps some contamination in the wood.

Finger jointed longitudly = weaker.

Vertically pretty close, plywood I'll leave out of this for now .

hard to comment on the veneer since it has been painted , looks like it could be flawed though.

Interestingly enough the 22 year old Built - Best windows we removed used plywood for the quarter and half circles. The BB in the garage that's going out today looks looks pretty similar in deterioration to the Marvin in question but with deeper cracks.

All the windows that arrived today including a half circle look like they were made from a vastly better batch of wood.

It's been a long convoluted process and one that has not left a great impression of Marvin Warranty claims but Marvin has determined this was a manufacturing defect. They are replacing the window but are refusing to cover the installation so their manufacturing errors will still put us at an additional out of pocket expense. Our dealer has been exceptional and frankly I don't believe with out their efforts this would have been resolved.

My understanding at this point is that the lamination layers are sprayed with some sort of chemical preservative which was not dry before the wood was painted causing a chemical reaction. At least that's the hypothesis of the repair tech. It's actually a fair bit worse than when the photos up-thread were taken. I'll follow up when the job is complete but all of this really under scores the need to really do your home work when picking a dealer.

No manufacturer pays for re-installation to replace defective items, whether it's windows, appliances, faucets, counters, or whatever. You will not find that anywhere.

I recommend you do what I did (mentioned in my post earlier) - get the Marvin window that comes primed, but not painted. My windows contractor never even offered me pre-painting as an option, only primed - I wonder if he knew that option was problematic. Have a painter paint the trim at your home. It sounds like the issues have arisen from ordering the windows painted, so just avoid that altogether. Just my $.02.

"No manufacturer pays for re-installation to replace defective items,
whether it's windows, appliances, faucets, counters, or whatever. You
will not find that anywhere."

According to our dealer whom I completely trust that's simply not accurate. In the case of manufacturing defects our dealer tells us Marvin often opts to cover installation costs. In our case Marvin felt they offered a reasonable repair which is why they did not cover this cost. The factory wanted to re-laminate two installed units (including one with out damage) so it would match the patch of the factory defect. The problem with that is the frame is rotting and covering it up will not make it better. Not to mention I had no interest in mucking with a window that had no issues.

Not opting for factory paint IMO is a B I G mistake. No painter is ever going to paint the sash's as well as the factory nor is it likely they will paint the inside of the frame exteriors, let alone under the sash hardware etc. A lot of the time painters don't even bother to paint the tops of the interior frames and trim which can create other issues. Primer is not adequate alone on those areas to protect your investment. The only reason not to buy factory painted is if you simply can't afford it or intend to have a different color on your finished product.

In this case the window still would have been a failure as it was determined the lamination was still wet from a treatment that is applied first. The end result would have been the same spraying wet wood with paint...or primer. The paint is not the culprit here.

I'll follow up when we are complete with the total process however that will likely be mid-December.

Deleted

Evidently I've earned your contempt Docsnotinn2day for my "B I G mistake". My choice to have my painter paint the trim rather than opt for factory finish was not as you said because "I couldn't afford it". In fact, having a painter paint trim is more costly than the factory finish. So, the upshot is that my Marvin windows' trim are all silk perfection even a couple years after installation. You, on the other hand, are returning to the same factory finish that caused what you've pictured on this thread.

For doors, factory finish is better. But for window trim, I agree with what East Bay 10 wrote above, that factory finish does not match up to what a top-notch painter can do by hand.

I've chimed in several times on this thread in hopes of helping you, as have the experts on this forum. Good luck.

"You, on the other hand, are returning to the same factory finish that caused what you've pictured on this thread."

Not according to Marvin but I guess you are more in tune to Marvin's product and production than the factory and their repair technicians.Repeating a false statement won't give it validity.

As an aside any contempt you read into my post was simply your own neurosis. My honest opinion is that factory paint is the best way to go for warranty assurance. If this window would have been hand painted you better believe as difficult as Marvin made this process they would have been blaming the painter and instead of a factory replacement I'd be looking at a total loss. So spending more...and getting less is simply not my idea of a wise investment.

As always YMMV.

Cracking me up that you click on "like" on your own posts! Good luck!

Edit: now you've removed your "Likes"?

freidajune has made accusations in another thread that I came back and edited my posts for tone and content. I have no idea what she is talking about however I want to be clear that none of my posts have been edited or altered in such a way. I'm hoping the best resolve for that is just addressing it here.

Setting that aside I did take the time to thank WOW on another forum. I wanted to do the same here and thank all of the Pro's for their input. Not a situation any one wants to be in. The takeaway is this case is that it is being resolved by Marvin. Once the window arrives I will follow up. Perhaps just starting another thread with the whole process and time frame for warranty replacement would be more beneficial.

Good to hear a resolution is at hand. I do have to reinforce a couple things that may have already been mentioned though. One, the factory finish is fine, but not even in the same league as a high quality professional paint job. I've heard this personally from Marvin's own reps and distributors. It's cheaper, that's the reason to do it. Secondly, that would is not rotted. All of the information presented points to some sort of reaction from the preservatives with the paint process, and/or possibly some wood of questionable finish quality. Offering to either laminate over that wood (which by all accounts is only aesthetically damaged) with labor included, or in this case provide new product sans installation cost both sound like very reasonable and fair solutions. I can speak from experience in saying that is over and above what you would receive from most manufacturers.

Solid points fridge although I'm not sure it mattered if the wood is rotted or decayed from the preservative as the end result was the same. According to Marvin preservative is applied before primer or paint so we most likely would have had the same result with primer on this piece of wood. If Marvin felt it was only aesthetic I doubt they would replace the unit. What is very hard to show in a photo is how high the ridges have come up in the affected area and that it appears to extend under the direct set window. The Marvin tech was quite surprised at the damage in relation to the photos.

Two factory techs were involved and both felt laminating was a poor option, although a Marvin manager felt that was the way to go. I have zero experience with that so I must defer to the expertise of others in that regard.

The paint is a bit of a conundrum to me. It's interesting to hear so many others feel that factory paint is more cost effective when my experience was the opposite. I have to believe there are two things at play there. Regional differences in what painters charge and sales commissions. This room has six windows in two openings. Factory paint was very expensive. The two quarter circles alone were $600 for factory paint. Then there was the casement and trim paint cost. TBH I could have had nearly all the windows in my house hand painted for what the factory paint charge was in this one room.

I have used Marvin primed in the past but I took the time to remove the hardware, paint the inside of the frames etc. That's a lot of work but the finish is very nice. Better than factory paint for sure. In my case I was able to have the store deliver the windows a week before installation so painting was far easier. I'm hoping to have the best of both worlds this time around by opting for factory paint and then hand painting in five years after that warranty has expired.

It's also good to know that others feel this was handled well. After all good customer service and past experience was a significant factor in choosing Marvin.

List price per window unit is $117.00. This is the same regardless of size, one lite or multiple divided lites . In California, a local painter would charge at least three times that especially on the divided lites. And I know outside of New York city or Hawaii, we probably have the highest labor costs so everything is relative.

Thanks for the information. I paid much more than list price for factory paint but I did my home work taking bids and I know that the bottom line was a good price. The dealer and installer have been great. We've been in this home for 20 years. I've priced and used a lot of painters over the years. I've never seen prices that high for a painter here but I certainly understand where every one is coming from now with the inverse price disparity on paint.